No it didn't. It is all you ever do. Insult the posters that don't agree with you .
It is obvious to everyone.
You don't need to insult others, try to just defend your opinion. That is what discussion is all about.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
No it didn't. It is all you ever do. Insult the posters that don't agree with you .
It is obvious to everyone.
You don't need to insult others, try to just defend your opinion. That is what discussion is all about.
Seeing TiVo's point on this case is not hating E*.
That is only how you interpret it.
You have the obvious hate toward TiVo and the US Patent system.
Plus I don't constantly insult fellow posters.
I have a tremendous amount of disrespect for the 'system' in general, and we can go on and on as to all the reasons why.
but your HATE for E* here is legendary, and how convenient for u that your tivo position supports your hate agenda.
there are many ways to be insulting, curtis. poluting a thread with your bitter, hateful, one-line invectives is just one of them.
but your HATE for E* here is legendary, and how convenient for u that your tivo position supports your hate agenda.
there are many ways to be insulting, curtis. poluting a thread with your bitter, hateful, one-line invectives is just one of them.
Speaking about lengendary, you constantly insult other posters to validate your view. And it is not just me.
You have all those insulting methods covered.
So we have no right to take TiVo's side?
Only E* supporting views are allowed?
Not a discussion if it is nothing but an E* love-fest.
You won't even admit that they did anything wrong with the 8 DVR's that were found to infringe.
Would it be possible for you to go a week without insulting anyone? Just 7 days, that's all I ask.
I have got a better idea. I am closing this thread for 3 days. You all get a vacation from whining and moaning at each other. DO not open a new thread on Tivo vs. Echostar during that time.
When I re-open it on Sunday afternoon, see if you can find a way to talk about the issues, or don't participate at all.
When I re-open it on Sunday afternoon, see if you can find a way to talk about the issues, or don't participate at all.
I will be reopening this thread this evening, but with new rules. There will be a zero tolerance policy for flaming, spam, and personal attacks. If you attack someone, you will receive an automatic 3 day vacation from the site. Do not post garbage just to post garbage.
Engage each other, but do so with civility, or risk losing access to satelliteguys. We have decided to do this because there are important issues that come up in the thread, which make it worth keeping. But our tolerance for the amount of trouble that this ONE thread causes is growing thin.
This thread will be reactivated this evening.
Engage each other, but do so with civility, or risk losing access to satelliteguys. We have decided to do this because there are important issues that come up in the thread, which make it worth keeping. But our tolerance for the amount of trouble that this ONE thread causes is growing thin.
This thread will be reactivated this evening.
Ok guys, I am reopening it momentarily. Keep it civil. Or it will go away permanently. No more warnings. Thank you.
Paice v Toyota
Just wanted to put out there Folsom's recent decision regarding post-judgment damages in Paice v Toyota, (if you haven't see it look it up). This has to be seen as a game-changer for infringers who have played the game based on the assumption that it might be cheaper to ask a jury than negotiate a license for a patent.
Does anyone out there think it's time for E* to fire the lawyers and negotiate a license before they lose more than they can afford? This has the potential to move the continuing infringement numbers into the billions.
Just wanted to put out there Folsom's recent decision regarding post-judgment damages in Paice v Toyota, (if you haven't see it look it up). This has to be seen as a game-changer for infringers who have played the game based on the assumption that it might be cheaper to ask a jury than negotiate a license for a patent.
Does anyone out there think it's time for E* to fire the lawyers and negotiate a license before they lose more than they can afford? This has the potential to move the continuing infringement numbers into the billions.
Or break the bank trying to prove it...
Remember the law guarantees nothing. The law does not dictate right or wrong. What the law gives you is the 'right' to defend yourself. The 'right' to pursue damages. And to exercise that right costs money...money up front. And no guarantees beyond that.
To assume a billion dollar windfall is folly. Never happen as it would probably cost a billion dollars to pursue in this current environment. Reflecting back on history isn't going to change that.
Perhaps my posing of the question was too subtle. I didn't mean to suggest a certain outcome or that it would be in the billions.
The question worth discussing is specifically how does Folsom's (the judge in our case) own ruling and language in his recent Paice order change the mathematics of litigation v. negotiation. I suppose if you're sure you will win it has no bearing. I'm suggesting that if you're not 100% sure, the decision tree just tilted somewhat substantially.
Furthermore, the litigation costs will never approach the actual damages already received ($104M plus $16M conceded, plus, plus) or the potential damages sought. There is no correlation between the two, and any smart litigant would never let that happen.
But you did...but thats ok...forgiven.
Please give a detailed account without wasting words regarding the similarities between the cases you are inferring. Otherwise, your comparison is pretty much meaningless.
Um...its not about cost, its not about damages...its about how much are you willing to gamble without a guaranteed outcome.
Surprised you missed that, sorry if I didn't make that clearer for you.
I specifically said "it has the potential", which is exactly the opposite of suggesting a certain outcome. So I specifically qualified one "possibility", which you interpreted and accused me of "suggesting a certain outome". Apology not accepted.
Please read Folsom's recent ruling re Paice v Toyota, it speaks for itself.
You stated: "Or break the bank trying to prove it..." and "To assume a billion dollar windfall is folly. Never happen as it would probably cost a billion dollars to pursue in this current environment."
I simply refuted the fundamentally absurd assertion that "it would probably cost a billion dollars in this current environment...trying to prove it". Exxon hasn't spent a quarter billion dollars to date on the Valdez, which is a multi-billion dollar damages award (tragically getting smaller every day). Your numbers are off by an order of magnitude, that means WAY OFF, Tivo has already banked in damages multiples of any possible legal fees they will EVER incur.
The question remaining unanswered is how does Folsom's recent Paice ruling, and specific justification change the math on litigation v. negotiation? Can you address that question?
- Status
